Scientific Evidence for Creationism

[Edx]

I`m not saying theories should not be taught but it should be made clear that they are theories and can be subjected to change.

But of course they are. Atomic theory, germ theory, aerodynamics and gravity are all theories in the same way as well.

but don`t you think evolution relies on as much of a faith basis as creationism

No, evolution has always been based on scientific evidence. I think you were told this by a Creationist, and so consequently you dont understand evolution or how science works anyway. If you want to learn what evolution is really about Im sure if you ask nicely people here will be happy to help you there.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I`m not saying theories should not be taught but it should be made clear that they are theories and can be subjected to change.
but don`t you think evolution relies on as much of a faith basis as creationism

There is a great deal of evidence for evolution but that is not the point of this thread. The point of the OP of this thread is to ask for actual evidence for creationism. Do you have any to present?

 

[he4rty]

No, evolution has always been based on scientific evidence. I think you were told this by a Creationist, and so consequently you dont understand evolution or how science works anyway. If you want to learn what evolution is really about Im sure if you ask nicely people here will be happy to help you there.

This is the problem i have with evolution, its like me taking a box of wooden building blocks throwing them in the air and when they land they build a house.now how many times must i do this before this would occur(i`d hate to try).
Also how many fish commited suicide by thinking oh i can live outside of this lake before one accualty did and survived but then there would have to have been two one male one female for evolution to progress.
i don`t dispute naturaul selection occuring amongst species,but for dna to suddenly change or grow then no i don`t think that can occur
because God created all things then we have a similar structure which has enabled people to observe life but now the`ve removed God from the equation.

 

[steen]

for what its worth

Creationism is an act of faith (no real scientific evidence)

Indeed. Claiming scientific evidence to creationism is bogus.

Evolution is a theory(No real scientific evidence)

this claim is outright false and it does indicate that you really don't know what a Scientific Theory is? After all, a Scientific Theory is the end result of the Scientific Method. the overall explanation that best explains all the evidence. So merely by that fact of science, your claim is blatantly false.

if an Evolutionist states his oppinion on a subject it is accepted as being scientific.

Also false. The statements regarding Evolution is based on actual evidence.

notice the similarities there both just oppinions.

Scientific Evidence os not opinion, it is evidence in the data sets. You are now misrepresenting Science.

just on look at the unverse and how the planets work in harmony with each other and the mathmatical precision which causes total eclipses to occur tells me God definitly had a hand in creating the universe.

Ah, a "just because I say so" posyulation if I have ever seen one. You are promoting a God-of-the-Gaps idea here. It means that everytime actual, solid evidence is presented to you, God shrinks.

 

[steen]

I`m not saying theories should not be taught but it should be made clear that they are theories and can be subjected to change.

Everything is subject to change. Gravity might be wrong. next time you let go or a rock, it might fall up.

but don`t you think evolution relies on as much of a faith basis as creationism

No, it relies on Scientific Evidence. That you have not bothered, before posting here, to understand what that means is not our fault.

 

[steen]

This is the problem i have with evolution, its like me taking a box of wooden building blocks throwing them in the air and when they land they build a house.now how many times must i do this before this would occur(i`d hate to try).

Ah, no it isn't. Your false analogy indicates that you have no real exposure to science or any training in the Scientific Method at all. I find that shocking.

Also how many fish commited suicide by thinking oh i can live outside of this lake before one accualty did and survived but then there would have to have been two one male one female for evolution to progress.

But then, there is nothign in the evidnece for the Scientific Theory of Evolution that ever shoed this to occur. So you are arguing against a blatant misrepresentation that you set up yourself.

The kind way of describing that is that you are using a strawman argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
....A straw man argument is a rhetorical technique based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, since the argument actually presented by the opponent has not been refuted......

If we are more cynical, we would think that you deliberately are dishonest about science.

i don`t dispute naturaul selection occuring amongst species,but for dna to suddenly change

So you are utterly and completely denying the existence of mutations? Just want to be clear on that point?

or grow then no i don`t think that can occur

What do you mean with "grow"?

because God created all things then we have a similar structure which has enabled people to observe life but now the`ve removed God from the equation.

Huh? This doesn't make a lick of sense. Could you try to explain what you mean?

And when you are done with all that, could you please actually get back on topic and show us actual, Scientific Evidence for creationism since that is what this tread is all about?

 

[Athene]

he4rty, it's quite clear that you haven't the slightest idea what a scientific theory is. Wiki has a good definition so read it and learn.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.

Do you get the last bit, originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence. A systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations.

I'm sure when you understand what a scientific theory actually is you'll realise how bizarre it is to demand that evolution comes with a warning lable attached 'this theory is only a theory' as it has been pointed out to you gravity is only a theory, atomic theory is only a theory . .. there are many others, do you believe that in teaching these theories it should be made clear they are only 'theories' I would hazard a guess no.

Seriously educate yourself, you're letting us UK people down.

 

[Athene]

.
i don`t dispute naturaul selection occuring amongst species,but for dna to suddenly change or grow then no i don`t think that can occur
because God created all things then we have a similar structure which has enabled people to observe life but now the`ve removed God from the equation.

Natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

This is the problem i have with evolution, its like me taking a box of wooden building blocks throwing them in the air and when they land they build a house.now how many times must i do this before this would occur(i`d hate to try).
Also how many fish commited suicide by thinking oh i can live outside of this lake before one accualty did and survived but then there would have to have been two one male one female for evolution to progress.
i don`t dispute naturaul selection occuring amongst species,but for dna to suddenly change or grow then no i don`t think that can occur
because God created all things then we have a similar structure which has enabled people to observe life but now the`ve removed God from the equation.

Some of your misconceptions have already been addressed but it is clear that you have no actual positive evidence for creationism and can only make strawman attacks on evolution. Or do you have positive evidence for creationism to present as requested in the OP of this thread? If so let's have it.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

This is the problem i have with evolution, its like me taking a box of wooden building blocks throwing them in the air and when they land they build a house.now how many times must i do this before this would occur(i`d hate to try).

The standard tornado in the junkyard argument. This statement is strong evidence that you have been listening to creationist propaganda. It is what is known as a strawman attack because it is attacking an easily demolished misrepresentation of the actual argument that noone actually holds. Evolution is not building a house out of blocks, it is the fact that you are slightly different than your parents and your children will be slightly different than you.

Also how many fish commited suicide by thinking oh i can live outside of this lake before one accualty did and survived but then there would have to have been two one male one female for evolution to progress.

More Strawpeople, Did you get your list from AIG or from Hovind? The funny thing is that your next statement will show that you really don't have a problem with the idea of Evolution, only what you have been told about it by dishonest people.

i don`t dispute naturaul selection occuring amongst species,but for dna to suddenly change or grow then no i don`t think that can occur
because God created all things then we have a similar structure which has enabled people to observe life but now the`ve removed God from the equation.

DNA does not suddenly change, dogs do not give birth to cats, you are right, evolution does not say it does, only the people who lied to you say that.

Re God, God has not been removed from the equation, evolution is a scientific theory and as such makes no reference to either a God or a lack thereof. There are many here on this board who see God's hand in evolution. They see the study of evolution as the study of the similar structures in life.

Once again, you are being lied to by people who want to put your faith in opposition to what you understand with your own God given brain. Stick around a while and ask a few questions and you will see that there is not a conflict between science and God.

 

[JohnR7]

No, your God is a perfect being and is supposed to be perfect, so therefore he is either innocent or guilty,

God will not take the blame for the mess that man and the devil have made out of things. God is "innocent", righteous and just.

science is not a democracy where the courts decide what is and is not right,
science is science and is treated as fact until it is proven otherwise.

Science has "peer review". Outside of that they have a kangaroo court where everyone is guilty. Science if left alone would very quickly self destruct.

 

[Pseudonym]

JohnR7, stay out of my thread.

for what its worth

Creationism is an act of faith (no real scientific evidence)

Evolution is a theory(No real scientific evidence)

if a creationist states his oppinion on a subject it is dismissed as being faith driven not scientific.

if an Evolutionist states his oppinion on a subject it is accepted as being scientific.

notice the similarities there both just oppinions.

theories should be taught as such, yet they get taught as though they are fact!

just on look at the unverse and how the planets work in harmony with each other and the mathmatical precision which causes total eclipses to occur tells me God definitly had a hand in creating the universe.

While I appreciate you posting in my train wreck of a thread, please stay on topic. None of what you have posted comes close to addressing my OP. While you may have a differing idea of what the Theory of Evolution is, this is not the place to discuss it or engage in banter. This thread is specifically for the purpose of posting scientific evidence for creationism, thus the title. If you'd like, perhaps you should post a new thread to discuss your ideas or any questions you may have. Otherwise, approach the OP or stay out.

 

[Edx]

This is the problem i have with evolution, its like me taking a box of wooden building blocks throwing them in the air and when they land they build a house.now how many times must i do this before this would occur(i`d hate to try).

This isnt how evolution is supposed to work, he4rty.

I am confident for the moment you only think it is becuase some Creationist you trusted told you that is what Evolution is, but I assure you it isnt.

Also how many fish commited suicide by thinking oh i can live outside of this lake before one accualty did and survived but then there would have to have been two one male one female for evolution to progress.

Again, evolution doesnt work like that.

If a Creationist is going to understand what Evolution is they must realise that everything Creationists ever told them about what Evolution is is probably not true. You must disregard all of it, and start from scratch because invariably everything you think you know about it is a misrepresentation and comic book version of what it really is.

Are you prepared to do that?

Ed

 

[Edx]

bump

 

[sccrkid85]

Ok, these are two broad subjects that YOU say verify the Bible. Where are your sources? Just because one part of the Bible is true does not make the whole thing true, I know for a fact that some thing sin there are true like that Rome crucified peopel for doing what Jesus did... although they never used crosses, I am fairly certain that was added during one of the little Bible changing pow-wows.

Show me scientific evidence of CREATIONISM,

Genius. The bible never mentions the cross, simply the crucifixtion

 

[sccrkid85]

Eye witness testimony written by someone who wrote it 200 years AFTER the fact??

The gospels were dated, by non christians and christians alike, to be approximately 30-60 years after the death of Christ. The gospel of Mark, the first written gospel, was finished around AD60. The gospels you are refering to, such as the gospel of Thomas and Mary Magdalene, were written 200-300 years after Christ, which is the reason they are not included in the bible. The facts found in these gospels don't line up with the Old Testament, nor are they historically reliable. Do you question who wrote Plato's works or when they were written? There is less historical evidence for Plato and other Greek philosophy writters than there is for the bible. Check your facts for the bible dear. In addition, the bible never mentions a cross, only a crucifixition. If you're going to critisize, at least try to have a basic understaning of what you are criticizing.

 

[sccrkid85]

the website godandscience.ord/evolution/index.html may be helpful to you. I've only had a chance to skim through it

 

[Adriac]

Do you question who wrote Plato's works or when they were written? There is less historical evidence for Plato and other Greek philosophy writters than there is for the bible.

Why bother? It really doesn't matter, except in a historical context. No one is going around saying that what Plato wrote actually occurred.

 

[azmurath]

The gospels were dated, by non christians and christians alike, to be approximately 30-60 years after the death of Christ. The gospel of Mark, the first written gospel, was finished around AD60. The gospels you are refering to, such as the gospel of Thomas and Mary Magdalene, were written 200-300 years after Christ, which is the reason they are not included in the bible. The facts found in these gospels don't line up with the Old Testament, nor are they historically reliable. Do you question who wrote Plato's works or when they were written? There is less historical evidence for Plato and other Greek philosophy writters than there is for the bible. Check your facts for the bible dear. In addition, the bible never mentions a cross, only a crucifixition. If you're going to critisize, at least try to have a basic understaning of what you are criticizing.

Dated how? Not radiometrically dated, because creationists do not accept radiometric dating for evolution evidence, so for them to accept that evidence would make them hypocrites.

 

[h2whoa]

Why bother? It really doesn't matter, except in a historical context. No one is going around saying that what Plato wrote actually occurred.

The other big point here is that there are works which actually claim to have been authored by Plato.